During the Baroque era of European history, European monarchs, some aided by newfound wealth in the New World, consolidated the powers of their nation state into one central government. For example, King Louis XIV seized and collected the powers of the feudal aristocrats. The decentralized distribution of power in France (and in other European countries) during the feudal ages maintained balance and order. Louis XIV wooed the aristocrats with glitter and glitz at his palatial estate at Versailles in exchange for power.
Now power was centrally located in Versailles and the king could keep a close eye on his subjects. More power, of course, came with more responsibility to serve a larger population. Isolation from the public and the follies pursued at Versailles, coupled with an archaic financial system to deal with the debts incurred from wars, sparked bitterness and resentment from people when mass starvation took place. Louis XVI inherited a bad throne. He had good intentions and sought to relieve the public of their hardships but was a weak king and was overpowered by other forces taking place.
Along came such glittering individuals with fiery ardour and enchanting charisma such as Robespierre. The king did agree to return to Paris and was willing to accept a limit on his power. However, at some point in time, the people took an insane route and guillotined the monarch and his subjects. I think this bloody end (part I) of French monarchy made martyrs of the likes of Marie Antoinette, Princess de Lamballe, etc... Many important people were lost such as the Lavoisiers. (The French people will never ever ever be pardoned for murdering the Lavoisiers. The guilt is placed on them by the world.) Princess de Lamballe was raped, beaten, and after she was killed, her head was impaled on a stick to terrorize the former Queen Marie Antoinette in her cell. Cruelty and evil was king and chaos and terror reigned.
The guillotine that murdered the French aristocracy was eventually used on ordinary citizens, who were suspected of being against the Revolution. Robespierre made it a point to keep terror in the atmosphere to keep the revolution alive. The French had enough and killed him. Napoleon, the "hero," rode and swooped up the power vacuum. He made military crusades throughout Europe and changes the political face of Europe and even the Americas. The megalomaniac crowned himself emperor. The French people had enough of the instability and brought the monarchy back. Then Napoleon returned for one last shot at ruling France and was defeated at Waterloo. Monarchy gave way to a republic and the rest was history.
To continue from the first paragraph, the consolidation of power in Europe led to some fun times during World War I. Oh yea! Fun family feuds! I just love it when thousands or millions of lives are lost on account of a few ruling individuals or families.
French people, can they ever get it right? LOL The British equivalent of the story was much more peaceful and actually began the limitation of royal power in the 13th century. Britain had much debt like France but had a more modern financial system to better deal with it. Their route to modern politics seemed much more stoic. It's actually the difference between British and French personalities today. Ha!
Anyway, I just wanted to rant about the evils of the French Revolution. It was costly and unnecessary. Too much emotional charge took it out of control. This was a rant and all that was presented was from the knowledge off the top of my head so I encourage you to correct me if you find anything incorrect.
Dario Crux
(Constantino Reyes)
Friday, April 2, 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Man, and man's best friend.
Ah! It is no wonder that dog is man's best friend since both species believe in the same social ideals. Dogs have a leader-follower structure built into their social psyche. But like dogs, humans also can't help but build a society divided by social castes or classes. Regardless of what political system a group may implement, there will always be that charismatic or strong leader and a horde of followers along with those who are in between, who will just go with the flow.
But wait? What about our democracy? What about our free market capitalism? What about anarchism? Do not those systems uplift the common people and promote autonomy? Yes, they have considerably given the average Joe more power than other socio-economic systems. However, we still have those alpha males sitting up on top of those gammas and deltas. We still have elites in our democratic republic, whether they are elites through politics or business. Anarchism probably gives the most autonomic power to the masses over all systems but I still think the elitist leader-follower system will prevail.
Why would they prevail? Call me elitist, but I think it has to do with someone's given lot in life. Beauty, intelligence, stature, personality, and temperament play a role on an individual's potential to have wealth and power. As long as people worship physical beauty, models and actors will remain wealthy. As long as people worship intelligence, the intelligenstia will remain powerful and wealthy. The gammas and deltas give the power to the alphas and betas. Without them, the elites would be nowhere.
Those who presently have power will most likely want to keep it and will make efforts to do so. Think about the industrial revolution of the late 19th century. Before that period, the United States had a more free market system with smaller barriers to entry. After that period, there arose the Vanderbilts, the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Morgans, along with giant corporations. The panic of 1907 gave elite bankers the opportunity to change legislation in their favor and did so. Our country is now controlled by banks and the federal reserve, the banks' lovechild. Don't believe me? What of those bailouts in the last couple years? Those trillions of dollars the government handed to financial institutions? What have we to show for it? Zip, because those institutions have every interest in keeping capital to themselves instead of lending it during a recession.
The preceding anecdote was just to illustrate my point that since the powerful will want to remain so, they will. There are always legal loopholes built just for them. Among the factors I listed, there is the psychological factor. The individual's temperament and personality. Some people say leaders are born, while others say that they are made. I believe it could be a bit of both, but rarely do we ever see leadership taken on by gamma and delta humans. (Yes, I'm still being vague on my classification of humans. I might explain this class system in another post.) I think this is so because there are some people who lack ambition and drive and are simply not interested in such positions in life. In spite of this, the lay masses will continue to complain yet do nothing.
So this class system, it seems, has been ongoing for millenia. We will always have kings and emperors. As was the case in late 18th century France, given the opportunity, some bright, charismatic, intelligent individual will seize the opportunity at power. And if it isn't presidents, senators, or prime ministers, it will be CEO's and chairmen. There is some kind of beauty to this equilibrium of balance of power. Humans are dynamic; leaders come and go. They may overthrow tyrants and new ones will show up. Leaders will step down and appoint new ones. These leaders can do great good or great evil. They can preserve or destroy culture. Regardless of what they do with their power, they are still an inevitable group of people. So like dogs, we humans do tricks for our masters so we can have treats.
Disclaimer: This post isn't thoroughly researched and my ideas aren't set in stone. I'm open to discussion and would prefer to have it, in fact. I challenge you to challenge my ideas and opinions. If you have any evidence, please bring it to the table. I intend for this blog to be a learning process for me, and hope it will be likewise for you as well.
Sincerely,
Dario Crux
(Constantino Reyes)
But wait? What about our democracy? What about our free market capitalism? What about anarchism? Do not those systems uplift the common people and promote autonomy? Yes, they have considerably given the average Joe more power than other socio-economic systems. However, we still have those alpha males sitting up on top of those gammas and deltas. We still have elites in our democratic republic, whether they are elites through politics or business. Anarchism probably gives the most autonomic power to the masses over all systems but I still think the elitist leader-follower system will prevail.
Why would they prevail? Call me elitist, but I think it has to do with someone's given lot in life. Beauty, intelligence, stature, personality, and temperament play a role on an individual's potential to have wealth and power. As long as people worship physical beauty, models and actors will remain wealthy. As long as people worship intelligence, the intelligenstia will remain powerful and wealthy. The gammas and deltas give the power to the alphas and betas. Without them, the elites would be nowhere.
Those who presently have power will most likely want to keep it and will make efforts to do so. Think about the industrial revolution of the late 19th century. Before that period, the United States had a more free market system with smaller barriers to entry. After that period, there arose the Vanderbilts, the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Morgans, along with giant corporations. The panic of 1907 gave elite bankers the opportunity to change legislation in their favor and did so. Our country is now controlled by banks and the federal reserve, the banks' lovechild. Don't believe me? What of those bailouts in the last couple years? Those trillions of dollars the government handed to financial institutions? What have we to show for it? Zip, because those institutions have every interest in keeping capital to themselves instead of lending it during a recession.
The preceding anecdote was just to illustrate my point that since the powerful will want to remain so, they will. There are always legal loopholes built just for them. Among the factors I listed, there is the psychological factor. The individual's temperament and personality. Some people say leaders are born, while others say that they are made. I believe it could be a bit of both, but rarely do we ever see leadership taken on by gamma and delta humans. (Yes, I'm still being vague on my classification of humans. I might explain this class system in another post.) I think this is so because there are some people who lack ambition and drive and are simply not interested in such positions in life. In spite of this, the lay masses will continue to complain yet do nothing.
So this class system, it seems, has been ongoing for millenia. We will always have kings and emperors. As was the case in late 18th century France, given the opportunity, some bright, charismatic, intelligent individual will seize the opportunity at power. And if it isn't presidents, senators, or prime ministers, it will be CEO's and chairmen. There is some kind of beauty to this equilibrium of balance of power. Humans are dynamic; leaders come and go. They may overthrow tyrants and new ones will show up. Leaders will step down and appoint new ones. These leaders can do great good or great evil. They can preserve or destroy culture. Regardless of what they do with their power, they are still an inevitable group of people. So like dogs, we humans do tricks for our masters so we can have treats.
Disclaimer: This post isn't thoroughly researched and my ideas aren't set in stone. I'm open to discussion and would prefer to have it, in fact. I challenge you to challenge my ideas and opinions. If you have any evidence, please bring it to the table. I intend for this blog to be a learning process for me, and hope it will be likewise for you as well.
Sincerely,
Dario Crux
(Constantino Reyes)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
